individual to whom the court reversed matters. -- refers matters. immigration courts are part of the justice, not judicial branch. those courts are seriously under resourced. the backlog in this course is two, three, four years -- in this course is two, two, four years. host: thank you so much for talking to our viewers about this subject. that does it for today's "washington journal." we learned earlier on the program that house republicans and democrats worked into the night, until about 1:30 a.m. last night, on the republicans' proposal for funding the government through the end of this fiscal year. debate continues on the house floor today. coverage continues here on c- span. "washington times" says the proposal includes cuts to

domestic spending, allows a small increase in defense spending, and the total discretionary government funding in 2011 will be about $1.20 trillion. thanks for watching. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] the speaker pro tempore: the how long will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c., february 16, 2011, i hereby appoint the honorable alan nunnelee to act as speaker pro temporerary on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 5, 2011, the chair will now recognize members from lists sub empty -- submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties, with each party limited to one

hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip limited to five minutes each. but in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, for five minutes. mr. poe: mr. speaker, the aftershocks of the egyptian revolution are being felt throughout the middle east. the hunger for freedom has gone viral and re-energized the movement for freedom in that country of iran. no country in that region presents more of a threat to the national security of the united states, to israel and the world than the tyrant from the desert and his regime in iran, ahmadinejad. ahmadinejad says that his first nuclear missile will be sent to tel aviv, israel. he hates the united states, he

hates israel and he has been determined to destroy the both. both of us. we must believe his words are more than just rhetoric. for decades the regime has managed to quash but not eliminate a vibrant opposition movement. in 2009 that frustration eresulted for the whole world to see. thousands of people, mainly young people, marched defiantly in the street, protesting the fraudulent election of ahmadinejad. the little tyrant is a rogue president and an illegitimate president. and the response from the regime was brutal. police on motor bikes ran over protesters, fired tear gas, beat them with batons, tortured them, shot them and over 100 protesters were murdered in the two weeks that followed the election. but to the surprise of the world and the little tyrant from the desert, the flame of freedom was not quashed in iran. during that fight for self-determination, our administration was somewhat passive, believing we could work with that tyrant.

but ahmadinejad does not want peace. he's already declared war on his own people and wants war with the west. in iran there's no freedom of expression, of association, no freedom from arrest, detention or torture. and women are denied basic human rights. but there's a remarkable thing, mr. speaker, about repress special. the more -- repression. the more a tyrant tries to hold onto power by cracking down on the people, the faster he loses grip on that society. so inspired by the events in egypt, tens of thousands of young people once again took to the streets in iran on monday to protest the rogue government. but the dictator's fighting back and he'll continue to do so. but the protesters want freedom in that crir i -- in their country. communication has been cut, however we are seeing communication from iran through videos and you tube and tweets from those -- youtube and tweets from the iranian people. the judiciary in iran has already arrested 1,500 people.

two nonviolent protesters have been murdered and the rogue parliament, along with the ahmadinejad, has called for the hanging of corrupt opposition leaders. but the people of iran still continue to protest. the iranian people, the iranian resistant movement is here to stay, whether ahmadinejad likes it or not and they deserve the same chance as every other freedom-loving people to rule their own country. the iranians are freedom-loving people and they deserve that basic human right that all peoples have of self-determination. and today we support, i support, the iranians in iran to take over their own country. to remove the dictator that is oppressing them. this fight will be difficult, but we hear the cries of the iranian people and those of us in congress that support them, we are not going away any more than the iranian people are going away because they have the

basic right of self-determination in their country. and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer, for five minutes. mr. hoyer: good morning, mr. speaker. if our country continues on the course of fiscal irresponsibility and continues to pile debt on our children, we will all feel the consequences no matter our party. it is vital that our two parties work together, mr. speaker, to put our fiscal house in order. so when i tell the house how disappointed i am in the proposal that is on the floor on spending for the rest of the fiscal year, i'm coming from a perspective of real worry about

our debt. a defining challenge that must be seriously met. sadly that's not the seriousness we see in the republican spending bills for the rest of this fiscal year. republicans begin the new congress by passing a rules package that paves the way to add nearly $5 trillion to the deficit. why do i say that? because the republican rules provide for $4.7 trillion, to be exact, in additional spending that is not paid for over the next 10 years. while at the same time suggesting reductions in spending which i think we need to affect. i may disagree with the specifics but we need to affect reductions in spending. however, if you project $1 trillion in reduced spending and $5 trillion in additional unpaid for expenditures, it doesn't take much of a mathematician to

get you to $4 trillion of additional deficits. in context of the $5 trillion they've authorized themselves to borrow from our children and in context of a republican record of fiscal irresponsibility in the past, whereas i pointed out, every republican administration with which i've served has run over $1 trillion of deficit, $1.4 trillion for mr. reagan, about $1.1 trillion for the first president bush, and $3.6 trillion for the second president bush. as contrasted with the $62.9 billion surplus under the clinton administration. time and again republicans have used the rhetoric of spending cuts as a cover for massive borrowing. for record surplus to turn into record deficits, $5.6 trillion projected surplus in 2001 turned into about a $5 trillion projected deficit in the

following eight years. under president bush and for budgets that year after year did far more fiscal damage than they promised, this time unfortunately it's no different. but let's look at the actual cuts proposed in this spending bill. they're short-sighted and indiscriminant. even as they failed to change our long-term fiscal picture for the better, these cuts recklessly damage programs essential to america's competitive edge. i agree that reducing spending is and must be a part of the fiscal solution. but let's reduce spending wisely instead of doing it in such a way that costs america jobs. when we talk about cutting investments in education, in innovation and in infrastructure we are talking about cutting tomorrow's jobs. because those are exactly the investments that will build the technologies and industries of the future and help american workers stay competitive in the

global economy. the association of general contractors said that just yesterday in "usa today." the spending bill on the floor today would make it harder for deserving students to afford college, meaning a less educated, less competitive work force. every business person that i talked to says that's not the way to go. it would cut 20,000 researchers supported by the national science foundation and $2.5 billion in cancer and other disease research at the national institutes of health. meaning an america in danger of losing its place in the world's innovation leaders. if we do that we will not be the kind of country americans want to be. it would lead to the loss of 25,000 construction jobs and leave our air traffic control system stuck in the last century. meaning an america with an infrastructure falling further and further behind our

competitors. we need spending discipline. everyone in america knows that. everyone in this house knows that. but not at the cost of our future and our jobs. i suggest to you that the rules adopted in this house not only did not affect discipline, they ignored and threw out the door discipline. and said that they could borrow $4.7 trillion and not pay for it. i can't sell up the central issue -- sum up the central issue any better than our director of o.m.b. said. he said this, we must take care to avoid indiscriminate cuts in areas critical to long-term growth like education, innovation and infrastructure. cuts that would stifle the economy just as it begins to recover. now who is making a similar statement like that? the president of the afl-cio and

the president of the united states chamber of commerce. that in turn would deprive of us one of the most powerful drivers of deficit reduction of growing an economy. the president's bipartisan fiscal commission agrees. it found that indiscriminant cuts to investments in growth would, and i quote, interfere with the ongoing economic recovery. both commissions concluded that short-term substantial cuts in research, education and innovation would be harmful to bringing this economy back to where we want it to be. therefore i urge my republican friends, listen to the economic and business leaders who understand the value of public investment. not as a replacement for the private sector but in partnership with the private sector. that's the partnership that democrats are striving for with our make it in america agenda.

make it in america of course means two things. number one, you're going to make it. you're going to succeed. you're going to have the opportunity to get opportunities. and of course make it in america also means we're going to make it in america. we're going to manufacture it and grow it in america. and sell it here and around the world. the president wants to double our exports over the next five years. we can do that, we should do that and americans believe that if we do that we'll remain the great economic engine that they believe our country needs to be. we have a set of bills that helps create an environment for american companies to create jobs here and manufacture more goods here in america so that more middle class families will be able to make it in america. let's cut needless spending, but preserve our investments in growth and let's work together to build the bipartisan support that is essential to the hard choices our long-term fiscal problems demand. and i tell my friends on the other side of the aisle, when

you look at your rules package and when uconn template the fact that you have provided for an additional $4.7 trillion of spending without paying for it and at the same time project $100 billion cut per year over 10 years, $1 trillion, it is quite obvious that there is a $4 trillion hole that you've created. reforming the tax code to grow our economy and reduce the deficit is absolutely essential in my view. eliminating wasteful defense spending that doesn't keep us safer and keeping our entitlement programs solvent for generations to come, those are the challenges that both republicans and democrats need to face together, to cooperate, to make common cause, to make sure that our children and grandchildren inherit a fiscally sound nation and not a nation deeply mired in debt, not a nation that has $4.7 trillion in

expenditures without paying for them as the republican rules suggest. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from new york, mrs. hayworth, for five minutes. ms. hayworth: thank you, mr. speaker. on january 24 i received a letter from middletown, new york. he wrote, as a 13-year-old boy in seventh grade, i am concerned about my future. currently the national debt is $14,6,000,552,.5. myself and every other sutzen will have to pay $45,241.77 to

eliminate this debt. my parents struggle with money and i'm afraid that i will struggle even more and not be able to own a home, buy a car, or provide for a family someday. i feel the only way to reduce the national debt is to reduce the amount of money the government is spending. there are many ways to do this. but i believe increasing taxes is not one of them. to reduce the national debt i would like to see you vote against any further bailout or any other wasteful spending programs that give money to people or businesses that make bad decisions. furthermore, i think you should concentrate on fraud and misuse of government funds. here is a 13-year-old who has the common sense to recognize that our federal government has been committing intergenerational theft and to

call for it to stop. our national debt is increasing at more than $4 billion per day. we are hearing a lot about the people who would be deprived of some form of been fit through spending cuts. but jeremy's voice reminds us that americans everywhere and especially those who are most vulnerable by virtue of their youth are being deprived of opportunity by the government's profligacy. we can help them best by returning taxpayer dollars to american pockets, to buy, build, invest, and hire. that is our most urgent task. jeremy is only 13, but he gets it. he needs us in congress to be adults, to accept that we must say no to what has been all too easy to do in the past, to spend

taxpayer dollars to grow the federal government far beyond its constitutional bounds. we must stay no -- say no in order to say yes to the opportunity and prosperity that come only with american enterprise, entrepreneurship, and ingenuity. we must say yes to the future that jeremy and all the members of his generation and of generations to come deserve as the hares to the -- heirs to the american dream. our nation is exceptional in all of history and all the world. it has always taken courage to defend it. the continuing resolution we pass this week must show that we have the courage to take control of our government spending and return power to the people. thank you. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the chair you now recognizes the

gentleman from illinois, mr. jackson, for five minutes. mr. jackson: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, with all of the talk about the c.r. and where money is being spent and where taxpayer dollars should be spent, i want to remind americans that there are 1.4 million americans on active duty in our u.s. military, another 7718,000 civilian personnel support them, and 1.1 million are in the reserves or national guard. the military is our nation's largest employer and it's honorable work. our fighting men and women are the best and the brightest, bravest, and most battle tested. they serve with distinction whether they are on bases here at home or in combat abroad. whether they are in the infantry or military information technology. once our soldiers, airmen, sailors, and marines leave the service, shouldn't they be assured a job right here in america? is that too much to ask of congress? is it too much to ask of

america? shouldn't their families know they will have a roof over their heads, food on their table, and clothes on their backs? the least we can do for our veterans, for too many veterans unemployment and economic insecurity is what they are finding in civilian life. recently i asked unemployed veterans to send me their resumes and their stories so i can submit them for the congressional record, to put their struggles front and center before our government. i heard from a number of veterans who sent their resumes to me at resumesforveterans at-at-mail.house.gov. i heard from one who served four years in the u.s. coast guard, he wrote in addition to being unemployed, many of us feel our government has been less than forthcoming about the scope of the problem. i couldn't agree more. mr. diver has been unemployed since june of 2009. i think we owe him more than that for his service that he's given to our country. vincent told me, quote, it's been a year since i have been discharged from the army and

it's virtually been impossible for me to find work that matches my skill set in the civilian market. i believe within the next few years unemployed veterans will be a bigger problem than it is now with the wars coming to a close, unquote. he last served in the army's first airborne division, 50 infantry regiment opposing force. we should see to it veterans like him find meaningful work when they are back at home. i heard from jay from kentucky who wrote simply and poignantly, quote, out of work for a year and a half. despite and desperate for a job. he signed the short email, respectfully j.g. megan. we owe him more respect than unemployment for his 20 years of service in the united states navy. i heard from evelyn thomas, she's a veteran of the army national guard and marine corps and lives in carlsbad, california. she enlisted in the military. she obtained a master's degree in teaching, learning, and leadership.

she told me we need to create jobs, we need to provide avenues and opportunities. i am at a crossroads. in which i must utilize my activism work to create a job. i must work to support my family. i want to work. surely there is a position for an honorably discharged veteran with a master's degree. indeed there should be. then, mr. speaker, i received what i think is the most striking email. it was from tonya, the wildfire of 12-year navy veteran named billy. she didn't write much. just that he had been out of work since december of 2009, over a year after his military service ended. but imagine the anguish, anguish that mr. and mrs. batson must be feeling. imagine the uncertainty. i refuse to accept that any military spouse should feel that. no husband or wife who after supporting their partner through military service, deployment, travel, and battle should feel they have to fight another battle at home to find a job, to

provide for their family, to be financially secure. mr. speaker, we can do better. we can create an economy that employs all of our veterans. we need a jobs program that will put americans back to work doing productive things for our society. teaching in classrooms, health clinics, home energy technicians. we can create jobs that pay benefits to workers and the country without the kind of overhead and infrastructure and other prospects. mr. speaker, we can do even better than creating jobs. we can eliminate unemployment as a factor in american life. in order to do that, i need to hear more stories like that from mr. diver, mr. torres, mr. megan, mr. thomas, and mr. and mrs. batson. i know they are out there. i'm calling on the unemployed veterans to send me their resumes and stories to resumesfromveterans at mail.house.govt will not put you in consideration for a job, but it can keep the unemployed problem front and center here in washington. we need to do something, mr. speaker, so that all americans,

veterans, and nonveterans alike have work. we can do so much better. i thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia, mr. hurt, for five minutes. mr. hurt: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of the urgent need to cut government spending and reduce government debt. last year our president and congress failed to enact a budget. this fundamental failure of leadership put our country on a path of skyrocketing debt, growing deficits, and unacceptably high unemployment. this week the president submitted to this new congress a new budget proposal. instead of recognizing the urgent need to reduce spending and reduce our debt, the president's budget proposal amounts to yet again a failure of leadership. it is a budget predicated on unsustainable deficit spending and insurmountable debt that will be passed on to our children and grandchildren. our deficit is projected to reach and all-time high of $1.6

trillion and our national debt is projected to equal the size of the entire u.s. economy, reaching over $15 trillion by september 30 of this year. and for 21 straight months our national unemployment rate has been at 9% or higher. the country's longest jobless streak since the great depression. the people of my district, virginia's fifth district, and the people of our nation, know this course is unsustainable and that it must stop. enough is enough. it is time to act on the urgent message sent by the people in november that we must put an end to washington's reckless spending. no longer should the people of the fifth district be stuck to foot the bill for a growing and intrusive federal government. no longer should families and businesses in central and south side virginia be the ones making the tough choices to live within their means while the federal government borrows 40 cents on every dollar it spends. by making tough choices and by

reducing government spending, we are taking a first step in tackling our unsustainable debt and preserving our economic strength for future generations. by reducing spending, we are restoring a sense of certainty and confidence in the marketplace that will create a better environment for job creation. by reducing spending, we are reducing the size and scope of the federal government and are empowering our true job creators to hire, innovate, an expand. the decisions we face are not easy, but we have not been given an easy task. now is the time to act and to act boldly if we are serious about leaving a better america for our children and grandchildren. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california, ms. bass, for five minutes. ms. bass: i rise to strong opposition to the reckless spending plan in h.r. 1. it's been 43 days since i joined

the new congress and my colleagues across the aisle have not offered one job, let alone offered a jobs plan to put americans back to work. while hardworking americans struggled to keep a roof over their head, food on the stable, and heat turned on, my colleagues have thot taken one single action to create jobs for the unemployed. they have completely abandoned the number one issue for the american people right now. jobs and the unemployment rate. in fact they are blatantly destroying instead of creating good jobs. in fact, mr. speaker, recently said over the last two years since president obama has taken office, the federal government has added 200,000 new federal jobs, greatly exaggerating, citing a number 10 times greater than what has actually been reported. he said, if some of the jobs are lost in the spending cuts, so be it. mr. speaker, under republican plan, jobs are the target of the cuts.

for example, the largest cuts, under h.r. 1, would result in more than 26,000 k through 12 teachers and support staff, 14,000 head start teachers, and 7,000 special ed teachers would all be losing their jobs. this is just the education budget alone. according to the nonpartisan economic policy institute, the republican continuing resolution would cost the nation almost one million jobs. included on the majority party cut list are, 25,000 new construction jobs from infrastructure projects, 1,300 police officers by eliminating the cops program, 2,400 firefighters by terminating safer grants, 16,000 private sector construction jobs lost from cutting $1.7 billion to the federal buildings fund. the spending plan would also slash in half all job training funds, dollars used to help

workers obtain the skills they need to compete in the global economy, mr. speaker, reducing the unemployment rate is the most important challenge facing this country, the most promising new source of economic growth and job creation is in our public infrastructure system from roads and bridges to broadband and air traffic control systems, to a new energy grid. i commend president obama for his leadership in crafting a budget proposal for fiscal year 2012, for his leadership in crafting this budget proposal that focuses federal dollars on rebuilding america's infrastructure which "usa today" describes as a massive job creation engine, with plans to generate millions of jobs by repairing and expanding highways, bridges, and railways. mr. speaker, the president's budget addresses the real source of the our deficit and makes careful choices needed to reduce the deficit. with cuts of $78 billion,

president obama has taken the first step in curbing the massive defense budget and i want to work with my colleagues and the president to find additional savings in the defense budget by closing permanent pace bases overseas that no longer serve a strategic value. for example, i believe we need to examine why we still have over 200 military bases in germany, 65 years after world war ii and many years after the fall of the berlin wall. the president also makes necessary sacrifices to sustain the maximum pell grant award for all students by eliminating the summer pell grant program. these are hard cuts to swallow but are necessary. . the republican bill on the other hand prefers to make short-sighted cuts. for example, cutting funding from programs that affect women and their children, like $758 million from the w.i.c. program, $$1 billion from head start. prohibiting access to family

planning services, guess what happens? then denying food for the child and denying access to preschool. mr. speaker, h.r. 1 recklessly cuts spending at the expense of our economic recovery and job creation. nor does the republican plan put us on a sustainable path to deficit reduction. i urge my colleagues to vote against this job-cutting, fiscally irresponsible spending bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. dreier, for five minutes. without objection, so ordered. mr. dreier: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i rise this morning to congratulate president obama for what i believe were the most important words that came from his press conference that he delivered yesterday. when he said, we all need to get into the boat together. now he was referring of course

to the challenge of entitlement spending. i listen to my california colleague talk about her priorities when it comes to dealing with budget issues, we're in the midst of a debate right now that will take place today on the challenges we face there. we're looking at making cuts that are important and need to take place. but, mr. speaker, they pale in comparison to the challenge that we face with dealing with -- of dealing with entitlement spending. when the president said we all need to get into that boat together what he meant was, it's very clear, we need to work together in a bipartisan way and there are all kinds of challenges that have been put before us and horror stories as it relates to entitlement spending and there is a tendency on both sites of the aisle when

it comes to -- sides of the aisle when it comes to dealing with the issue of entitlement spending to point the finger of blame at the other party. and that's why i was particularly pleased that just recently the former chairman of the senate budget committee, our colleague, along with the former director of the congressional budget office have been meeting with leaders of both political parties, talking about the imperative of dealing with the issue of entitlement reform. as we look at the debate that's taking place right now, mr. speaker, on the discretionary spending that is before us and juxtapose that to the massive, massive spending as we look as far as the eye can see when it comes to social security, medicare and other entitlement spending, i believe that we

will, if we can deal with entitlement spending, we will be able to have resources to address priorities that i know my california colleague and other colleagues on both sides of the aisle share. so that's why i think that it's important for both the left and the right to come together and recognize that the problems that exist, the problems that exist with entitlement spending need to be addressed in a bipartisan way, they can be addressed in a bipartisan way and in so doing we will be ensuring that future generations are not going to face this tremendous debt burden, we'll be addressing the issue that the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff has said is our number one national security threat, and that is the looming national debt. and i believe that we will be able to let the american people know that we do have as a priority a desire to work together, to resolve the very important problems that lie ahead. so with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the

gentleman from illinois, mr. gutierrez, for five minutes. mr. gutierrez: i ask unanimous consent that my remarks be allowed to be revised. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. gutierrez: i rise today to bring the urgent attention of the u.s. house of representatives to a human rights and civil rights crisis. i want to talk to you today about a part of the world where the rights of citizens of all walks of life to protest and speak their mind is being denied with clubs and pepper spray. a part of the world where a student strike led the university to ban student protests anywhere, any time on campus. and where when the students protested the crackdown on free speech, they were violently attacked by heavily armed riot police. a place where a newspaper editorial stated, quote, the in discriminant aggression of the police squad against students who are exercising their constitutional rights in public areas is a gross violation of

their rights and an act compareble only to the acts of dictatorships we all denounce and reject. a place where the government has complosed public access to some legislative sessions just like this one. i ask this congress to look at a part of the world where the bar association has been dismantled by the legislature and its leader has been jailed for fighting a politically motivated lawsuit. and where is this part of the world? egypt? no. protesters exercising freedom of speech brault down a dictater in cairo -- brought down a dictater in cairo last week. what far-away land has seen student protests banned, union protesters beaten and free speech advocates jailed? the united states of america's colony of puerto rico. sound outrageous? it is. but true. and well documented. i ask my colleagues in the u.s. house of representatives to turn

their eyes to puerto rico. the doors of the u.s. congress are open, our proceedings are public. in fact, the public is our boss and that's how it works in a democracy. across america today i am sure there will be protests at college campuses, across america workers will go on strike and there will be marches and protests against mayors and governors and derogatory things said even about president obama. in madison, wisconsin, as we speak, protests over employment policies and budget cuts at the university of wisconsin are taking place. college and even high school students have been joined by union members and their allies in peaceful protests on the street across the state of wisconsin. will we see pepper spray and beatings? not likely. the protesters will be protected by our first amendment to our constitution. and that's the way it works in a democracy.

it is their right to say whatever they want and say it without fear of pepper spray or clubs or a legislature that limits and restricts the people's rights. in the 50 states we have lots of organizations, not unlike the puerto rican bar association, an organization under attack by the government. and we don't tolerate its leaders being sent to jail because they exercise their right and they stand up for what they believe in. but that's not the reality in puerto rico. just last week a federal judge with close ties to the ruling party and a personal history of opposing the puerto rican bar association, this federal judge, whose salary is paid for by the taxpayers of america, ordered the president of the puerto rican bar association to jail. and what was his crime? educating his members on how to opt out of a politically motivated lawsuit designed to

destroy the bar association. for me this attack was the final straw that brought me to the floor to speak out today. so in solidarity with the judge for doing his job, i will enter into the congressional record today the instructions for his members on how to opt out of the class action lawsuit that is threatening the viability of the bar association. i will say to those who would pass laws to stifle public protest, to those who would authorize the use of force against peaceful protesters and to stifle the words and actions of their enemies, attacking free speech has no place in a democracy and a federal judge should know better. here are the facts that most of us learned a long time ago. brutal laws, secret meetings, armed enforcers don't extinguish the flame of justice, they are the spark that makes it burn even brighter.

you may with your armed guards and your restrictive laws try to slow down the protests of the people of puerto rico. you meja rass the puerto rican bar association and -- you may what has the puerto rican bar association -- you meja rass the puerto rican -- you may harass the puerto rican bar association. i say to the people of puerto rico, there are some places that this crusade to end free speech cannot reach. not today, not ever. i stand with you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. butterfield, for five minutes. mr. butterfield: ask permission to address the house for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. butterfield: thank you very much, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i've come to the

well today to talk about what i call the insensitivity of the republican majority as they seek to cut important domestic spending that will affect low income and working class families in america. every member of this body, mr. speaker, understands that we must reduce the deficit. we understand that. we must put america on the path of fiscal responsibility and so we don't need lectures from the republican majority, we don't need partisanship. what we need as the distinguished chairman of the rules committee said a few moments ago, we need a bipartisan solution to these great problems. while some of the republicans' solutions in h.r. 1 will certainly eliminate infective programs, these cuts cannot be made arbitrarily. they should not be made simply to make good on a political campaign promise. many of the proposed cuts will only cost us more in the long run.

one glaring example, mr. speaker, republicans want to cut $1.3 billion from community health centers. republicans ignore the fact that since the start of the recession , four million additional americans have lost their health insurance which means that more and more people rely on community health centers. when the uninsured get sick, they do one of three things. they stay home and get sicker and lose productivity. or they will go to the emergency room and leave a bill that we all will end up paying for and insurance companies will pay for. or, mr. speaker, they can go to a community health center, to receive medical care. under their proposal republicans seek to eliminate funding for 127 kwlinics in underserved districts across 39 states and reduce services at another 1,096

community health centers nationwide. that is absolutely awful. this cut would have devastating affects on communities and patients who most need access to care, patients with diabetes and hart disease and -- heart disease and hiv-aids and pregnant women and children, leaving them nowhere to turn for health care. under these cuts, more than $2 -- 2.8 million people would likely lose access to their current primary care provider and over 5,000 health care center staffs could lose their jobs. the president's 2012 budget proposal by contrast builds on the health care reform law by boosting investment in health centers. the budget includes $3.3 billion for the health senters' program, including $1.2 billion in mandatory funding provided through the affordable care

community health center fund. mr. speaker, i represent many poor rural communities in eastern north carolina, with many constituents who depend on community health centers and i know how deeply these cuts will be felt. as we struggle with this difficult economy and struggle with difficult fiscal issues, we have an even greater responsibility to protect our most vulnerable citizens, especially, especially when it comes to access to health care. community health centers are cutting costs, they're continuing to serve our communities extremely well and they need and they deserve congressional support. i urge my colleagues to support worthwhile investments in community health centers and reject the unwise cuts in h.r. 1. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.

the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york, mr. tonko, for five minutes. mr. tonko: permission to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is granted. mr. tonko: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in strong opposition to the republican spending bill currently before this house. this bill fails to create jobs, deeply hurts our families and seniors and responds with extremes at a time when our fragile economy can least afford it. i'm committed to a budget that lives within our means while investing in the future and cutting our deficit, however this irresponsible republican spending bill hampers job creation and jeopardizes investment in american innovation, american education and american infrastructure. . that's why president obama vowed to veto the bill. because it undermines critical priorities for national security and kur tails the drivers of long-term -- curtails the drivers of long-term economic growth and job creation. we must do more to focus on jobs

, grow the economy, and protect our middle class. certainly while responsibly tackling our nation's debt and deficit, that is why i have offered eight amendments to this bill which will protect seniors, protect energy innovation, strengthen our children's education, and most importantly will protect and grow jobs as the fragile economy slowly recovers. we simply cannot afford to pull the rug out from underneath progress. not now, not when we are finally rebounding from the bush recession, not with the extreme spending bill this represents. i refuse to take america back to the failed policies that sunk our economy. my first two amendments would restore funding from the cuts to the social security administration, to prevent its shut down, the cuts that the irresponsible republican spending bill proposed $625 billion -- erase $625 billion from the social security administration. this a effect the 53 million americans who are collecting

social security by furloughing every employee and closing the doors for a month or morement an estimated 400,000 people, mostly seniors, would not have their claims processed this year, creating a huge backlog and threatening the timely payment of benefits. my amendments would restore this funding because i do not believe we should use our nation's seniors that have worked hard and played by the rules their whole lives to somehow painfully balance our budget. this is simply extreme and, again, painfully irresponsible. the low-income home energy assistance program, liheap, is also cut in this irresponsible republican spending plan. by some $400 million. those are cuts made on the backs of the low-income residents, seniors, disabled, and those with children. like those i represent in the now cold and snowy capital region of new york who struggle to pay to keep the their mow stat set at a livable level. liheap keeps those receiving

help from having to make the heartbreaking decision about whether to pay to keep the heat on or pay for food and prescription drugs. to pull the rug out from underneath our nation's most vulnerable is both simply extreme and painfully irresponsible. my fourth amendment would maintain funding for the weatherization assistance program and the state energy program. it is amendment number 4 and it's set up for recorded vote today. i encourage my colleagues to support this bill. the state energy program yields $7.22 in annual energy savings for every $1 invested in it while renovating our 13,000 buildings per year. the weatherization assistance program helps low-income and elderly save over $437 on their annual utility bill and decreases oil consumption by the equivalent of 24.1 million barrels annually. to cut these jobs, that clearly work is both simply extreme and

painfully irresponsible. i have also offered two amendments that would protect the clean air act and clean water act from being jeopardized under the irresponsible republican spending plan. the clean air act protects public health and safety and saves hundreds of thousands of lives since 1970 by reducing air pollution by 60% while the economy has grown by 200%. the clean water act protects drinking water for 117 million americans, and safeguards 20 million acres of wetlands and wildlife happen at that time from big polluters. seeking to inappropriately ledge stimulate against these programs in a spending bill, the continuing resolution would threaten the air our children breathe and the water we drink. this is simply extreme and painfully irresponsible. my seventh amendment removes unobligated funding from fossil energy research and development and transfers these funds to the office of energy efficiency and renewable energy. this would prioritize our investment from dirty oil and

dirty fossil fuels -- fuel sources of the past to the energy of today and tomorrow. clean energy that would create jobs and make us competitive in a global market. oozing to sit out the clean energy race of today for the outdated energy sources of yesterday is simply extreme and painfully irresponsible. and my eighth amendment would restore funding for education and pro-- to ensure our children and future of our country have the resources they need to compete in a global marketplace for generations to come. it prevents thousands of teacher layoffs. the irresponsible republican spending bill cuts over $1.25 billion in education funding that goes directly to states at a time when we can least afford it. balancing the budget on the backs of our children and their education is simply extreme and painfully irresponsible. mr. speaker, i strongly oppose the current irresponsible republican spending bill before the house. it threatens to undermine our recovering economy and job growth. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired.

mr. tonko: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington, mr. mcdermott, for five minutes. mr. mcdermott: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, i rise today to encourage my republican colleagues to stop their attack on women. family planning is between women, their doctors, and their family. republicans have no business being in that discussion. the anti-choice, anti-women republican majority in the house has been eliminating critical health services for women, a top priority, apparently protection begins at conception and ends at birth. republicans want to cut all reproductive health care in the country and are trying to shut down planned parenthood. what an amazingly immoral thing to do. it's utterly disingenuous of the republicans to go after planned

parenthood in their inhuman crusade. radical republicans are catering to their most extreme base at the exence of 150 million women in this country, and they should be ashamed. but they won't. the republicans are also at war with the poor, again, leaving millions of low-income women and women of color with no access to basic health care. let's not forget, the american people sent us here to solve problems. to face everyone. unfortunately, the republican leadership has laser focus not on jobs or the economy or the national security, but on attacking women and children in this bill. waging a culture war to get campaign contributions from the extremists in this country. in their rush to appease religious conservatives and undermine the health care law, republicans have gone from pro-life to pro-government intrusion in the extreme.

republican government is about silencing you as you talk to your doctor. the republicans love to silence americans and anyone else that gets on their moral crusade. only a real republican kohl love a law that says, it has a -- republican could love a law that says it has a gag rule. the agenda set by the republicans is the most unprecedented form of government intervention on reproductive rights in decades. i remember the 1970's and 1960's, the republicans are defining what constitutes forcible rape. and penalizing private businesses that choose comprehensive insurance coverage . if that's not government intervention, i don't know what is. women are the victim in several major bills and amendments that the republican leadership is pushing, and a mind-boggling speed. these radical anti-choice bills all seek to fundamentally erode the right of all women to health care. more importantly, they don't

reflect the will of the american people. recent national survey conducted by the lombardo consulting group found that more than 60% of the voters support family planning. how is attacking women helping the economy or creating jobs or helping our national security? we have been in the house for a month now, and we have seen lots of talks about how we are going to slice the deficit, but not one single discussion, serious discussion, about how to get there. it is irresponsible to allow these narrowly driven ideological debates about women's health to dominate the house calendar when we have a budget to work out and almost 15 million unemployed. i urge my colleagues to abandon this vicious attack on women and focus on issues the american people actually sent us here to solve. looking for jobs. and i urge my republican colleagues to get out of the doctor's office and leave women

and families and the doctors alone. i also ask unanimous consent to add to the congressional record an article by joel connelly of the "seattle post-intelligencer" , that talks about the duplicitous and dangerous agenda set by the house republicans to severely restrict the rights of women, children, and low-income families. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from kentucky, mr. yarmuth, for five minutes. mr. yarmuth: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, we are involved in probably the most important thing that this body does on a year to year basis, figuring out how to spend taxpayers' money. the budget process is more than taking dollars from one place and spending them in another. it's a statement of our values. statement of our values as representatives who are entrusted by our constituents to

do the right thing. statement of our values as a nation. i think it's pretty clear what we have seen in h.r. 1, republican version of the continuing resolution proposal, that we have a very distinct difference in our values. at a time when millions and millions and millions of americans, hundreds of thousands of kentuckians are suffering, the republican continuing resolution would take money, put the burden of these very, very serious economic times on the people least able to afford them. at the same time we are taking money away from incredibly important investments that this nation has to make if it wants to remain competitive in this global economy, a generation from now, and two generations from now. instead, the republicans would slash money from police departments, slash money from fire departments, slash money

from our education system. that would deal a very serious blow to head start, all of the things that we need to fulfill our basic obligation as a government. one is to provide opportunity, one is to protect our citizens, and then the final thing they would slash is important investments in infrastructure. which we know if we review history is one of the most important investments that we can make in terms ever long-term economic vitality. -- terms of long-term economic vitality. the republican budget slashing money from infrastructure, from transportation projects would cost this economy, according to one estimate, 300,000 private sector jobs. now, we are fighting hard and hard and hard, as hard as we can to create jobs. as a matter of fact for the last entire congress the republicans kept saying on this very floor, where are the jobs? where are the jobs?

now, after six weeks of their majority rule in the house, we haven't seen one proposal to create a job, but what we have seen is a budget that is so draconian in its cuts it would actually destroy american jobs. this is not the type of values that the american people want to see coming out of this body. all of us agree that we have a serious long-term financial picture in this country. we do need to deal with our deficits and with our national debt. we do need to make long-term changes. but you know, if you are a family and you have a lot of people in your family that are overweight, you don't say, ok, we are going to stop eating today. we are just not going to eat. no. you say, we are going to go on a program, we are going to reduce our calories, exercise, but we still have to do some important things. we have to eat.

we have to pape for the roof over our head. we have -- we have to pay for the roof over our head. we have kids going to college. we do want to make those investments even if we have to borrow money. we just don't stop. we can't stand in place because the rest of the world is not standing in place. so as we move forward in these few days, considering the continuing resolution, h.r. 1, let's remain mindful of what our values as a country are. this is a country that has always made investment, has always looked to the future, has always said, yeah, in a capitalistic society some people are not going to do as well, are not going to have as good a luck, and we've got to lift them up. we have to help them out. over the last 25 years the percentage of wealth, the amount of wealth owned by the top 5% in this country has gone from $8 trillion to $40 trillion. according to david stockman,

he's the former budget director under the reagan administration. that's an enormous amount of wealth. that increase in wealth alone, top 5% of this country, in the last 25 years is more than the entire wealth of the world prior to 1985. so the people at the top have done very well, enhanced and encouraged by tax policies that the republicans have put in place, but meanwhile we've got to make sure those other 95%, the american people, do well, too. and we've got to make sure that the policies we enact, the budgets that we approve in this body reflect those values. i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california, ms. richardson, for five minutes. ms. richardson: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to speak in opposition to h.r. 1. first of all, i want to begin my

comments by talking about last night, a couple of issues that were so important to many of us. number one, cops grant funding and also cdbg which stands for community development block grants. now, i don't know about many of you, but i started my legislative career in local government. and for most of us we know that cops grant funding is what actually puts the police officers on the streets, in the neighborhoods, that can help protect the communities. now i would ask you, do you want to take two police officers out of your neighborhood? i don't think so. i would ask the question, why are we willing to support police officers in iraq and afghanistan and to do nation building there and yet we're not willing to do nation building in our own country? something's wrong with this proposal today. we don't have the right priorities. and that's why i stand in opposition. community development block grants.

when i was on the city council, what did that fund? parks, housing, helped businesses. do we want to say no to that? is that what really this budget is about? is that where the abuses have been in the neighborhoods? i wouldn't say yes to that. so let me end with my last comments which i'm going to focus on which is the committee of jurisdiction that i serve, and i'm the ranking member of emergency communications preparedness and response. i stand in opposition to section 1628 through 1634 and 1648 of this bill which cuts funding to the federal emergency management agency also known as fema. i oppose these provisions because they are unwise, irresponsible and they undermine what our nation learned do. we want to go back? how many of us remember watching on television when we looked at 9/11? how many of us remember hurricane katrina?

it wasn't that long ago and i know i don't want to go back. this bill that the republicans have brought to the floor is reckless, it's not only reckless to our economy, it's reckless to the american workers and above all it puts our national security in harm's way. the terrorist acts of september 11 revealed the catastrophic consequences of our inability to communicate. have we forgotten? we just got inner operable radios in my district just last year. they're not all connected. and it's a huge vulnerability for all of us. communication glitches also occurred during the response to hurricane katrina yet the republicans want to step back and terminate those grants for inneroperable emergency communications. have we not learned anything? these draconian cuts will put our first responders at risk and slow down the response to terrorist attacks and natural

disasters. i cannot in good conscience and i don't any of you can as well accept these cuts to such vital emergency pieces of equipment that we all need and we depend upon. further, this short-sighted republican plan also puts our nation's fire fighting ability at risk. now, i'm from california. we know about fires. we know about the need for firefighters. this bill would eliminate staffing for adequate fire and emergency response grants programs. you tell me to the resident who has lost their home that, oh, we'll deal with this next year? fires aren't something you plan. it's an emergency that has to be responded to. and so when we call upon our firefighters, the international association of firefighters, they're opposed to this. why? not because they're not being fiscally responsible, but because this bill would cut jobs .

5,200 jobs. on top of the already 5,000 firefighters we've lost. is your community willing to lose more firefighters? i don't think so. the city of compton in my district is the future home to an emergency operations communications center by fema. my district is home to several mainly oil refineries, gas treatment facilities, petrochemical facilities and of course the challenges and opportunities of two ports, of both the port of los angeles and long beach. these centralized major business economic engines thrive, but we also have problems sometimes. and that's would you we need the appropriate support of fire and communications to protect them. this republican bill seeks to destroy jobs, to end operation centers, all of the things we've learned from the past. i can't support depriving first responders the equipment that they need to do their jobs. i can't support this bill and

hurt our firefighters, our police officers and those who choose to serve us. so, mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to h.r. 1 and i urge my colleagues to really look at this bill closely and make sure that our communities aren't paying but the real abuses that got us here, that's where the cuts should begin. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from american samoa, mr. faleomavaega, for five minutes. without objection, the gentleman's recognized. mr. faleomavaega: mr. speaker, not wanting to detract from today's spirited discussion or debate on h.r. 1 for which i will discuss at a later point in time of the day, but i want to discuss with my colleagues and the american people the current crisis now happening between the

government of chile and the people of easter island. also known among its native people. easter island was settled by poll nearbyan voyagers about 700 a.d. the island is famous for some 887 monl mental statues carved out of stones weighing tens of tons and these statues are known throughout the world for its archeological wonder and mystery and how these ancient people were able to carve and move these tremendous statues to different locations of the island. less well known is that easter island is the home of roughly 2,500 indigenous people, people known as a nation. the people of easter island carry a vibrant culture dating back centuries before the arrival of europeans. like many other islands in the pacific, easter island has had its sovereignty determined by more powerful outside

influences. in 1888, the nation entered florida noo a disputed treaty with the government of chile. the chillan government used the treaty as a license to treat the island and the indigenous people as property of the state. chile confined the people to a small area, about one square mile, believe this, mr. speaker, today known. today the validity of the 1888 agreement is contested by most of the people. chile then annexed easter island in 1933 without the consent or even consultations with the native people. the government of chile unilaterally leased the entire island and the people to private sheep-herding enterprises without their consent. the lands that were wrongfully taken from the native people have not been restored. instead of returning the land to their rightful owners, the chilean government continues private enterprises interested in exploiting the native culture

for private gain. in addition, mr. speaker, to the serious land rights disputes, several other issues threaten the livelihood of the people of the island. for example, roughly 50,000 tourists each year flock to easter island to view these huge statues. yet the chilean policies prevent the native people from benefiting from its tourism industry, noninincidental news to individuals and corporations possess most of the land while jobs related to tourism often go to continental chileans. uncontrolled migration to the island has caused widespread unemployment among the native people, exploitation of natural resources and increased pollution. within this context, mr. speaker, the native nation began taking a stand in july and august of last year. the people wrote several letters to the president of chile to negotiate a peaceful solution to the underlying problems of

chile's relationship with the people of easter island. the native people also began to peacefully reoccupy their ancest ral lands, including a hotel, five-star hotel supposedly being built by a family, a nonindigenous family on land belonging to the native people. mr. speaker, the government of chile reacted to the occupation by initiating dialogue between the government representing the native individuals. the chilean government has sent military police to this little island which is 2,300 miles from chile, i can't believe, mr. speaker, we have 17 million people, good people living in chile, sending police forces to take control of this little island that was possessed by some 2,300 natives and they're not given any consultation or

even an opportunity to conduct consultations, serious consultations, with the government of chile. mr. speaker, i hope, i sincerely hope that the government of chile begin a dialogue for ways to help the native people achieve a greater sense of self-determination and self-governance in their lands. i ask the president to advocate for a more positive approach for partnership and dialogue with the indigenous people of easter island. it is my honest belief that the indigenous people of easter island do not wish any harm to the good people of chile. nor is there a possibility that the people of easter island will ever pose a threat to the military as strategic or national security interests of the people of the government of chile. mr. speaker, i hope that the white house and the state department and assistant secretary will take a stand against these divine interdictions and express solidarity with the nation,

especially in light of president obama's planned visit to chile next month and assistant secretary of venezuela's recent testimony before the house foreign affairs committee yesterday. and i sincerely hope that even our international community will build pressure on the president and the people and the government of chile, let's treat these poor people a little more justly and provide the opportunities so they can develop their islands, give them opportunity to live in peace in this area. i ask that the good people of america, make this appeal, the government of chile will be response to have this request. i yield back. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california, ms. speier, for five minutes. ms. speier: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized.

ms. speier: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in opposition to this continuing resolution. a continuing resolution that i call the silly, the dangerous and the hypocritical. budgets are more than just numbers. they are a statement of our values as a nation. as a congress we are faced with several serious challenges. growing our economy, putting back people to work, investing in the future, reducing the deficit and ensuring the most vulnerable in our society are protected. judging on that criteria alone, this c.r. doesn't pass the laugh test. it would cut 300,000 private sector transportation jobs, ensuring our construction workers are receiving unemployment checks instead of paychecks.

it would stifle our competition. it would stifle competitiveness by making pell grants less accessible to students and families. and it would run rough shod over women, children and the environment. with such an extreme proposal, i assume my good friends on the republican side would be coming forward with ideas to improve it. but what we've got this week is a combination of the silly, the dangerous and the hypocritical. in the silly department we have an amendment preventing funds from being used to repair the white house. now, ironically right now going on in the rayburn building are remodeling of hearing rooms that i guess the chairman of these committees have found no need to halt. how much money is being spent there? or how about the amendment preventing funds from being used for president obama's

teleprompter? oh, right, we're going to cut $3,000 from the budget. that's really going to help us. you know, i expect this sort of hyperpartisanship on cable tv but not in a budget debate. under dangerous we have several provisions -- provisions gutting environment protection, rolling back e.p.a. regulations on clean air and clean water and reducing our investment in clean energy, making america even more dependent on foreign oil. how many more solar panels do we want manufactured in china? . . let's have chinese companies pour in more tainted toys, more lead toys for our kids. how about the reduction in funding for our first responders meaning there will be less cops and less firefighters in every single neighborhood in this country? or how about the amendment preventing funding for the consumer financial protection bureau, meaning big banks can

call the shots again. have we learned nothing from the financial meltdown over the last three years? or how about the unprecedented attack on women's reproductive health which will result in more unplanned pregnancies and more abortions, not less. and finally, the categorys my colleagues on the other side seem to relish the most, hypocritical. the colleague that ran on jobs has run on a budget that will increase the unemployment rolls. asked about the unlikely job losses in the c.r., speaker boehner said, so be it. it's like marine antoinette saying let them eat cake. they took a tooth pick. in fact, there is another $2.2 billion in the budget for the b-22 osprey which is obsolete. $495 million for nine joint stryker -- joint strike fighters, and $450 million for a

second engine that the military defense budget doesn't want. and the party that ran on fiscal responsibility has offered a budget that will balloon the deficit by continuing tax cuts for the millionaires and billionaires that don't need them. i agree with president obama that we must outinnovate, outeducate, and outbuild the rest of the world. while not perfect, the budget he released this week will take an important step in that direction. as for the silly, dangerous, and the hypocritical c.r. we are considering today, i urge my colleagues to vote no. budgeting is a serious process. what we are doing this week is unserious at least. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from connecticut, mr. murphy, for three minutes.

mr. murphy: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, on a day we are talking about the continuing resolution, i want to talk about a body that may be someday judging the continuing resolution, the supreme court. there is perhaps nothing more important to the preservation of our democracy than the continued guaranteed impartiality of our supreme court. it's uniquely american institution. it's been given enormous power to invalidate americans laws. and it needs to be dispensed with complete blind justice, blind to outside influence. however this nation's confidence in the blind justice of the supreme court has been badly shaken recently by a series of revelations regarding possible conflicts of interest by justice scalia and justice thomas in the citizens united case. this landmark 5-4 decision overturned restrictions on corporate funding that have been in place since 1947 and immediately thereafter, millions and millions of dollars in shadowy special interest groups flowed into american campaigns.

two of the main benefactors of these are charles and david cope. they spent about $2.6 billion that we know about in the 2010 election cycle, and likely a lot more in anonymous donations. in addition to funding these outside groups, they organized a lot of conferences in which they gather people of like mind to discuss their radical views and lot strategies to benefit their interests. now, if i were to ask somebody on a main street in my district if they would be comfortable with a supreme court justice attending a conference like this, having their plane flight and hotel all paid for by the special interest, i know what their answer would be, they would say no way. justice scalia and justice thomas did just that. they thought it was just fine. they didn't recuse themselves from the citizens united decision at all. but here's the real problem. this could be just an isolated problem to the citizens united case, or it could be much more widespread with justices

conflicted on several fronts, reducing to disclose themselves when they have actual conflicts of interest. we have no idea because right now there is no law requiring supreme court justices to disclose their conflicts of interest as is required of all other federal justices. i don't believe we should be meddling in the day-to-day business of the supreme court. i get why there is great wisdom in separating legislative and judicial functions, but there's no undue burden in just requiring sunlight on supreme court proceedings. when we return to washington after the recess, i will be introducing legislation to do just that, to implement a few reasonable reforms to add greater transparency and disclosure requirements on the supreme court. i hope my colleagues will join me. my legislation will apply to the judicial conference code of conduct to the supreme court which applies to all other federal judges. it will require the justices to simply publicly disclose why they have recused them selves from a particular case. and it will ask the court to

develop a simple process so that the parties to a case can request the court to decide whether a particular justice has a conflict of interest. i think this is an important step forward for transparency on a democracy and on the supreme court, and i ask my colleagues to join me in this important legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california, ms. chu, for two minutes. ms. chu: this saturday, japanese americans will take a moment to remember the tragic events that imprisoned their community 69 years ago. in 1942, president roosevelt siped one of the strongest acts against american citizens, executive order 9066, imprisoning 120,000 japanese americans with the stroke of a pen. half of those incarcerated were

children posing no threat to our national security. but these concentration camps were labeled a military necessity and so they, too, were rounded up and forced to live their childhood in bleak, remote camps surrounded by bashed -- barbed wire and armed fences. families were forced out of their homes, made to leave their jobs. families were torn apart. this unconstitutional act was a blatant violation of american civil rights. and all of this occurred at the hands of our government oppressing individual freedom for years without any factual basis and without due process. that is why i plan to introduce a bill tomorrow to institute a national day of remembrance to annually observe the signing of executive order 9066. this brings back painful memories of a period in american

history, but it's important for us to remember because it also provide an ongoing reminder about the value of protecting the civil rights of all people. the day of remembrance also honors all who fought and continue to fight for freedom and equality among all people. so this saturday i will take a moment also to remember this time and to hope for a better future. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields. the chair recognizes -- the chair recognizes the gentleman from indiana, mr. donnelly, for two minutes. mr. donnelly: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise to speak on h.r. 1, access to an affordable quality education, is part of

the american dream. in our competitive global economy, a college degree is more important than ever. with annual tuition hikes outpacing inflation, the cost of attending college is increasing just as quickly as the importants of attending. making college more affordable has been one of my top priorities and should be a top priority for this congress. unfortunately, this bill sends the other message. this bill threatens to cut pell grants by over $5.6 bill, denying millions of americans, including over 20,000 students in my district, the chance to attend and graduate from college. the number of my constituents receiving pell grants has increased by over $6,000 in the last -- 6,000 people in the last school year. this is possible in large part by efforts that have been supported in congress to make college more affordable and provide our students with the skills needed to compete in the 21st century global economy.

access to pell grants is often the deciding factor for a family when contemplating whether they can afford to send their son or daughter to college. it is the deciding factor often on whether or not a displaced worker can afford to go back to school to get retrained. it is often a deciding factor on whether or not a potential student will have access to the world of opportunities that come with a college education. we need to do fiscal belt tightening, but cutting over $5.6 billion in financial aid for americans seeking higher education so that they may better equip themselves for the jobs of tomorrow is a self-destructive act. simply put, investing in education is an investment in our future. cutting pell grants is detrimental to that future. we need to stand up for america and make good financial decisions. we need to tighten our budgets but pell grants should not be one of them. thank you.

the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until 12:00 noon today.

term the budget i'm proposing today heats that pledge. >> president obama sent congress a $3.7 trillion budget, that would reduce the deficit by $1.1 trillion over the next 10 years. this week hear the details from the administration, including cabinet officials and watch reaction from house and senate members online at the c-span video library. search, watch, clip and share any time, it's washington your way. >> the senate select intelligence committee is meeting today to look into u.s. readiness against homegrown and international security threats. witnesses include c.i.a. director, f.b.i. director and the directors for the national counterterrorism center, national intelligence and the defense intelligence agency. we go to live coverage from the senate -- the senate hart office building on capitol hill. this got under way at 10:00 this morning. we're joining it in progress. >> over what the future is going

to be. >> madam chairman, this is the -- one of the most complicated relationships that i've seen in a long time in this town. on the one hand obviously we are involved at targeting the leadership of al qaeda there in fattah and we do get the cooperation of the pakistanis in that effort. in trying to target those individuals that concern us and threaten this country and threaten their country as well. in addition to we have gone their cooperation on a military basis, being able to go into places like -- and have a military presence there. moving troops from the indian border for the purposes of doing that and that has been appreciated as well. at the same time obviously they

look at issues related to their national interests. and take steps that further complicate our relationship and create tensions between our country and theirs. and that happens a great deal. and our effort is to try to work through those. in the end what i tried to convince the pakistanies of is we have a common enemy and we have common issues that require the cooperation and partnership of both countries in order to be able to deal with those threats. but i have to tell you that it is very complicated and it does involve often times conflicting viewpoints of how we deal with issues. >> madam chairwoman, i think first i'd say that your citation of points are fair and accurate ones of the challenges we face. with respect to the terrorism situation in pakistan, first first i would note, we still see

al qaeda in pakistan being at its weakest point since 9/11. some that have has to do with what the pakistanis have done with us, some of that is what they allow us to do. but it is critical that we have really hurt al qaeda core in a very meaningful way. that being said, there are certainly weaknesses in that cooperation at times and in particular i think the ongoing dispute that you note about the mumbai attackers, feeds into the tension between the two nations and can also undermine some of our counterterrorism efforts, not just at al qaeda, but also others. >> you made a comment at the house hearing about lash car having the ability to strike the united states in europe. could you expand on that? >> i can to some degree in this setting, madam speaker. what we have not yet seen is a history of them doing so.

we are certainly concerned by a some indicators we see of them expanding their horizons beyond the region. certainly they have the capacity. it's a large organization, what they did in india could theoretically be launched elsewhere. but we have not yet seen those steps occur. i think the additional point that i would stress is it can still be a very destabilizing factor in the region. so even without striking in the u.s. or europe, a further attack in india would very much hurt our national security and our counterterrorism interests in pakistan. >> mr. panetta, you mentioned trying to work through these issues. i just wonder how effective a position that is.

you can -- >> sure. you know, madam chairwoman, you know, because we are involved in obviously very important efforts to deal with an enemy that threatens this country and we're doing it in their nation, in the fattah and the tribal areas, it does require that we have to go out of our way to do everything possible to get their cooperation and for that reason i spend an awful lot of time talking with my counterpart, both in pakistan and here as well, to try to see if we can focus on some common issues. we have some common areas that we can work on. we work with them, we work with our afghan counterparts as well to try to develop a coordinated approach to dealing with this. at the same time there are issues that we have with regards to how they operate, the ties

they have to certain groups that concern us, that we try to work through in these discussions. i have to be, you know, part director of the c.i.a. and part diplomat in order to get this job done. >> could you speak to what the rational is for the building of -- rationale is for the building of another nuclear weapon? how much of the country has been under watt around really in difficult, difficult circumstances -- water and really in difficult, difficult circumstances. >> again, one of those other complicating issue ises the fact that they're a nuclear power. they have a number of nuclear sites throughout their country and they have proceeded to keep up the development of their nuclear weapons. as far as the broad policy implications of the economy, the politics, the stability of that country, dealing with the flood damage, you need to ask them why they're not paying attention to

those other problems. >> thank you very much. mr. vice chairman. >> thanks, madam chairman. going back to this guantanamo detainee issue, the recidivism rate, as i understand, it's in excess of 25% today. that means one out of every four that have been let go, turned over to another country, has engaged on the battlefield against american or maybe afghan troops. now, that's what we know. i suspect the number is probably higher than that because we don't know all of the individuals that have gone back to the battlefield. our policy that's in place today has even allowed some of those prisoners to be returned to places like yemen where we have very little control and my understanding on a visit to yemen is that they basically were sent back to their tribal

region and they have a personal obligation on themselves to support -- to report back to you -- to us, nobody believes and certainly they haven't on their own initiative come and told us where they are and what they're doing. so they basically have no supervision. we're now down to probably the real hardcore in guantanamo. do you see any further revisions in our policy with respect to those individuals? and what -- with what's happening in the middle east today, particularly tunisia, egypt, the number of other countries, bahrain i noticed this morning is the latest, that have protests, has this had an impact and reflected upon our

decisions with respect to release of those individuals to any particular country? >> sir in regards to the first part of your question, the 25% figure that you mentioned is a combination of both confirmed and suspected. so the whole 25% would not be confirmed by the defense tense agency in terms of having returned to the fight or re-engaged. the intelligence people in d.i.a., i would say in the community, though i'm receipt sent to speak on behalf of the community, would not push back on your statement in terms of there is concern out there as we return some to certain countries that the following mechanisms are not totally in place that would make us comfortable in

that, but that is more of a policy call. and then to the last part of your question, sir, i would defer because i don't think it's appropriate for me to be commenting on policy as the director of the defense intelligence agency. >> sir, if i might add one important factoid i think i should mention is the fact that the president suspended any further repatriations to yenl, preprosecute sicely because of -- yemen, precisely because they don't have the app rat to us monitor owe rehabilitation. with the new pro-- or rehabilitate. with the new processes have thank have been instituted, the 5% recidivism rate, there are now five, two confirmed and three suspect that are recidivist. now, the counter to that of course is that you need more time or time would elapse, you

discover these people. you know, it remains to be seen. there are about 172 detainees remaining at gitmo and as you correctly point out, these -- and the bulk of those from a single nationality standpoint i think are yemeni. and right now i don't think there's much likelihood of our returning anyone to yemen, particularly in light of, as you point out, the upheavals that are going on there and that certainly would bear on any of the other countries that we might consider for repatriation. >> we got a problem in this area that the chairman and i have already had some initial conversation about and senator graham and i have been working on a piece of legislation that's going to be forth coming and the problem is, director panetta,

let's say your folks were successful in capturing bin laden, zawahiri, any other h.v.t. tomorrow. what are you going to do with them? >> process would obviously involve, especially with both targets that you just described, we would probably move them quickly into military jurisdiction at bagram for questioning and then eventually move them probably to guantanamo. >> we haven't moved anybody to guantanamo in years now. and obviously there has been a move toward closure of that facility and i would tend to agree with you, that's probably the best place for anybody to go

right now, the safest place from a national security standpoint. politically it may not be popular, but certainly it is dish appreciate your honesty and straightforwardness about what would you do. if we were to capture either one of those -- if we were to capture either one of those two luminaries, if i can use that term, there would plobble be -- probably be a matter of some interagency discussions, what their ultimate disposition would be and whether they would be tried or not. that would, i'm sure if we did capture them, would be a subject of some discussion. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, madam chair. and, director clapper, i think you know that i'm going to ask a follow-up question about stephanie owe sullivan. i think we've communicated that to your staff. let me approach it this way. you know, this to me is not

about fingerpointing. this is about the american people see $50 billion going out the door in terms of intelligence and they want to see particularly how information is made available to policymakers in a timely kind of fashion. and we got a classified response to the questions that i asked mrs. o'sullivan at her hearing and voted for and i think she's going to be a good person in your operation, but i want to go further and see what we can get on the public record with respect to this area. now, i come to this almost by way of saying that nobody ought to think that the intelligence community should have predicted that a street vendor in tunisia was going to light themselves on fire and trigger these protests all around the world. but at some point, mr. director, after that young man's

self-emulation and the events of that period, it must have been clear to intelligence community analysts that this wave of protests was going to threaten president mubarak's hold on power. and at some point analysts must have communicated this to policymakers. when did that happen? >> sir, if you're looking for a date i would pick january 14, when ben ali, in what i thought was a surprising snap decision, he dismissed the government, he called for new parliamentary elections within six months, declared a state of emergency, announced he was stepping down temporarily and then fled to saudi arabia. that i think was the tipping point, if you will, and we saw the community, i think pretty

clearly saw what the contagion effect was going to be and those states throughout the mideast that would be most susceptible to that contagion, among whom was ejiment. >> are you satisfied with -- egypt. >> are you satisfied with the way in which the intelligence community handled it? and do you, looking back now, always easy to come back in hindsight, are you looking at any improvements or adjustments given what -- >> first comment i would make, sir, is that we're not like sherman williams paint, we don't cover the earth equally. and so frankly tunisia was probably not up there on our top 10 countries we're watching closely. so there is the aspect of, you know, the spread, the balance of our -- >> priority. >> collection, priorities, exactly, so that obviously we're

going to work on that. i think the notion of, as the chairman correctly observed is, you know, we're going to pay a lot more attention to social media and what else can we do there to extract warnings from those? but to me this is -- a good friend of mipe wrote a piece on this, this is -- of mine wrote a piece on this this is something like an 85-year-old man who is overweight, has high cholesterol, diabetes, heart disease, doesn't eat well, doesn't sleep well and you know the life expectancy is not very good. very difficult to fortell exactly when -- foretell exactly when he'll expire but you know the conditions are there and that's a rough analogy, i think, to what we're facing here in predicting these exact tipping points, having insight into the dynamics of crowd psychology.

the fact that the movement in egypt had no defined leader or leaders, this was a spontaneous thing, fed, no question, you know, by social media. so this is a new phenomenon, frankly. and i think we do need to improve our attention to that. another interesting aspect is the extent to which governments permit access to the internet or participation in facebook. and so we've done a lot of work on that since then, but to me, again, the tipping point, and personally it surprised me when ben ali made a very snap decision and left. >> madam chair, director panetta wants to respond, i did want to ask one question about iran before we wrap up, because i don't think we've asked a question.

>> if i could, because, i mean, it's an important question and, you know, our job is to provide the very best, the most timely, the most relevant intelligence we can to the president, to policymakers here. we have over the years long warned by the dangers in this region. i think last year alone we had about 450 intelligence reports that talked about the factors that were dangerous in the region. factors like regressive regimes, economic and political stagnation, the lack of freedoms, the lack of reforms. and yet at the same time it is difficult to predict the future. it's difficult, i mean, the most difficult thing is to get into the head of somebody and try to figure out what that person's going to decide. we have that problem with the leaders in iran in korea, north korea, and clearly with ben ali,

the same issue. how do you get into someone's head when they make the decision to get out of the country? what we do need to do, mine, so i think we do a pretty good job of teeing up the dangers in an area. what we need to do is have a better understanding and better collection on these triggers, what triggers these events? and there it's the unmet expectations, it's the large increase in the numbers of youth, educated, out of work, that play on the internet. what is the role of the internet and the social network and how does that play into demonstrations? the military's role. generally we would all say after 20 or 30 years, you know, someone in government, that the millary's going to be loyal to that individual and basically support establishing security. that didn't happen. in tunisia and in egypt they were working both sides. and so understanding that is really important. what i've done is we formed a

35-member task force and the director of intelligence to basically collect on these issues. what's the popular sentiment? what's the loyalty of the military? what's the strength of the opposition? what's the role of the internet? we have got to do better -- a better job at collecting in those areas so that we can have a better sense of what might tip off these kinds of changes. >> before we leave, you asked the iranian question. let me make a comment, have your reaction, director panetta. i'm the first to criticize the community when i think we've screwed up or made a mistake, but here, as we do look back on it now, is it not a fair statement to say that your station chiefs really did have a feeling of the uneaseness in this region of the world -- uneasyness in this region of the world in virtually every country, but certainly they weren't object the twitter list

-- on the twitter list of the individuals in egypt who sent this around, they weren't on the facebook account, they had no idea that this individual in the marketplace was going to set himself on fire and i think that's what we missed. but, gee whiz, i don't know how we do otherwise. but my feeling from having talked to your station chiefs, and not every country, but that there was a feeling on their part and they had communicated that back to you in headquarters that there are powder kegs in that part of the world. >> absolutely. absolutely. your point is correct. our c.o.s.'s for a period of time have been indicating the various factors that they were concerned about that we now see playing out in the demonstrations that are taking place throughout that region. >> thank you both and i appreciate your flushing out the information that we have now. because obviously people are

going to look at this as an important case for quite some time to come with respect to how the community reacts to a surprising set of events and this is helpful. i just didn't want to wrap up, director clapper, without getting into iran at least to some extent. your testimony said that the intelligence community continues to judge that iran's nuclear decision making is guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a determination to pursue nuclear weapons at all costs. now, last year the administration succeeded in convincing the international community to impose new and tougher sanctions on the iranian regime. in your view, what impact have these sanctions had on the iranian regime today? >> well, they clearly have had impact on the rapan economy and the -- iranian economy and -- which i think is increasingly affecting the average citizen.

i'm not sure the average citizen in iran sees it that way, but that is the affect. obviously the point here is to induce a change in behavior on the part of the iranians. >> how seriously do you think the regime is taking the sanctions? >> i think and i'll ask others if they want to contribute to this, but i think it is clearly a factor on their mind. as the screws have gotten tighter i think they clearly are seeing the affect. can't say frankly that that has had an affect on the nuclear program at this point. >> i would add that in areas like insurance, banking, shipping, gasoline, clearly in refining, that it's had quite an

impact and that that's had an impact on the population as well. but the last point that director clapper made about the direct impact is one that maybe we could discuss in another setting. >> i'm interested in a classified forum to know more about the affect its had on the regime and one last point that i think we can get into in public, your testimony tough touches, director clapper, on the fact that the iranian regime is expected to contain athletes -- threats to its stability from the iranian opposition, but that its actions have opened up a rift between traditional conservatives and what are in effect the hardline conservatives. so if this rift were to continue , are the traditional conservatives likely to start coming over to the opposition side? the opposition movement? >> well, at this point i'm not really sang win that's going to happen and i base that on the most recent round of

demonstrations, well, monday, which the iranian government managed to suppress. by the way, including -- included in that suppression is suppressing access to the internet and the social media at all. so, again, these regimes are very -- have gotten very sensitive, as we have, about the importance. i think another thing i'd cite is executions have spiked at an all-time high in iran and so that has a chilling effect, i think, on the opposition. two opposition leaders for this movement, there was a vote by the people, over 200 of which voted to execute them. so clearly -- and of course you have the irony is, as the president cited, of the iranian regime praising the

demonstrations in the streets of cairo and other places, it's fine elsewhere, but not here. >> not in our neighborhood. >> right. >> all right, thank you all and again, thank you for your service and it's been a helpful hearing this morning. thank you, madam chair. >> thank you very much. gentlemen, thank you so much. the hearing is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> shortly we'll return to live coverage of the u.s. house today. the house members returning to federal spending for the rest of this budget year. the government's been operating with temporary spending authority since october. republicans have put together a $1 trillion plan through the end of the budget year. more than 700 amendments have been proposed, not all will be considered, though. the house is going through the federal spending bill, department by department, allowing members to offer their amendments to each section. votes will be taken throughout the day with the last vote today

planned for late evening. debate is expected to continue through the week. the house also considering a senate change to extending expiring patriot act provisions. those provisions including business records, roving wiretaps and individual terrorists acting as agents of foreign powers. the senate shortened the length of the extension. the senate continuing work on federal aviation programs today. a number of amendments are pending on that bill and negotiations continue on several provisions. including how many long distance flights are allow -- allowed from washington's -- washington, d.c.'s reagan airport and funds in lesser states like alaska. you can see live coverage of the house here on c-span. the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our guest chaplain, reverend

bill shuler, capitol life church here in washington, d.c. the chaplain: let us pray. heavenly father, we but our heads to worship you for you are an awesome and personal god. make us ever mindful of the words engraved over the speaker's chair, in fwod we trust. we place our trust not in man or political parties or in our own strength. it is in you we trust. you are the god who founded our nation, the god who gave us liberty and it is by turning to you that we are blessed. guide each member of congress by your hand, protect them, refresh them in body, mind, and spirit, help them to love their families well, to serve their constituents with excellence, and to strengthen our nation by their decision. we pray these things in the name of the one who taught us the true priorities of life

when he called us to seek first the kingdom of gd and all these things will be added to us. in jesus' name, amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from texas, mr. poe. mr. poe i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the gentleman from virginia, mr. moran, is recognized for one minute. mr. moran: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise to recognize rev lend bill shuler who delivered this morning's

invocation. he's the senior pastor of capitol life church in arlington, virginia. he and his family moved to the washington metropolitan area in september, 2001, just days before 9/11. he launched a prayer center near the capitol which formed the capitol life church. he's the seventh generation of an unbroken line of ministers in the shuler family. i think it might be interesting for the members to know that reverend shuler has preached in seven nations in the world, he served as dean of student affairs at oral roberts university. dr. billy graham recently expressed his appreciation for the service of this family. billy graham's biographer said

bill's father was the -- grandfather was as popular as billy graham in the 1940's. he's joined today by his -- a number of congress regapts, as well as his three love -- of congregants, as well as three lovely daughters, we thank him for gracing our -- gracing us today. the speaker: the chair -- the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain one minute requests. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: david hartley, leslie ann regis, carlos mario, and now i.c.e. agent jaime zapata. they are all american victims

of the border war, all murdered in mexico. yesterday, i.c.e. agent jaime zapata was murdered and another agent wounded when they were gunned down at a fake check point between mexico city and monterey. none of the asan sins or perpetrators of any of these have been caught. agent zapata's murder will be news for a few day bus then the country will move on. but the war will continue against the vicious drug cartels and it's time we act knowledged that the war is not going away. the drug bandits have operational control over portions of the southern border. drugs and people are smuggled north, money and guns are smuggled south. we should hold the lawless accountable for murdering mexicans and americans, otherwise there will be more murders like the one against agent zapata. that's just the way it is.

i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> i rise today to honor a truly great american, roger branigan. he's earned the distinguished service medal, the he leof merit and the bronze star. following his service, he joined the california department of veterans' affairs and was appointed secretary in 2009. under his leadership, the department implemented california's operation welcome home a ground breaking program that matches veterans with the services and assistance they earned and need. general branigan, who recently retired, envisioned operation welcome home expanding nationwide so all veterans may benefit from this important and effect i program. throughout both his military service and civilian career,

general branigan proved himself an exemplary leader. i ask my colleagues to join me in honoring him for his tireless service to our veterans, to the state of california and to our great nation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? >> i request permission to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. wilson: on monday, the proposed budget for next year was released by the current administration. it fails to address the issue of washington's four-year spending excess. the proposed budget raises will not work. they will not provide a path to fundamental reform. the proposed budget destroys jobs while adding $13 trillion to the national debt. bill miller of the u.s. chamber of commerce reports that the budget leads to $175 billion in new tax increases. it cripples job creations by

spending too much, taxing too much and borrowing too much. excessive por roe big the government competes unfairly with small businesses. i support fundamental cuts that will promote private sector job creation. we cannot expect to boar the our way to prosperity. house republicans are committed to combining sound policy with practical solutions to create jobs. we need to cut spending resh deuce borrowing, keep taxes low and provide the necessary tools to jump start job creation. in conclusion, god bless our troops an we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> poth because ma understands times are difficult. it is close to 14% unemployment.

right now, we should be working on a plan that creates jobs. mr. baca: i state to create job and make intelligent cuts to the budget. instead the republicans have introduced a spending bill that will undermine the future of the american children. the republican c.r. is another attempt to play politics with the well-being of every american. 200,000 children will be kicked out of their head start while republicans still live in their offices. over 700,000 -- 700,000,000 will be cut from w.i.c. pell programs will be reduced making college unaffordable for tovense thousands and thousands more teachers will be receiving a pink slip. cripture tells us love thy neighbor, not thyself. but apparently for americans it's about me, myself, and irene. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rise?

>> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> once again this echinese government has targeted someone. a head of civil rights. he was granted an interview regarding the absence of the chinese delegation at an international gathering of evangelicals. mr. pitts: the government's response to the interview was systematic interrogation, search and seizure an torture. he's under house arrest, guarded by police in beijing and cut off from the outside world. those attempting to contact him through family have endured police brutality. i call upon the state department and our embassy in beijing to reach out to him to verify his condition and apply pressure on the chinese government to ensure his release. the chinese government's continued persecution of human rights advocates, harassment, brutality and house arrest must not be tolerated.

i hope we'll stand up for him and support his work to bring freedom and degreenyity to the chinese people. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is are exniced for one minute. ms. woolsey: i rise in opposition to the budget cuts in the continuing resolution before us in the house today. slashing noaa's funding by 22% will put lives, property, and critical infrastructure in jeopardy by diminishing our ability to respond to disasters like the gulf oil spill and conduct safe evacuations in advance of weather emergencies. also, marine sanctuaries would be inevitably cut and thosing an chairs are so essential to a healthy coastal environment. and to the fishermen and to the tourism economies along our coast. cutting noaa funding will also sacrifice the science and

technology investments that we need to win the future. and to maintain robust funding for vital agency. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrs. capps: i rise in opposition to the misguided spending bill on the floor. this bill slashes higher education funding. how can we expect our students to compete globally when we don't invest in the resources to allow them to succeed. under this bill, over one million college students in california alone will have their pell grant cut by $675. these students probably won't be able to take classes next semester or buy textbooks. it doesn't make sense. america's businesses need a well-trained, highly skilled work force. we want our country to out-innovate, out-educate the rest of the world. we need to start with adequate

funding for education. this bill is a direct attack on our future work force. i urge my colleagues to oppose it. our students deserve better, our country deserves better. vote no on the reckless republican people bus spending bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? >> permission to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> poth because ma challenged us to out-innovate the rest of the world to compete globally. we must educate our way to a prosperous future. mr. richmond: instead of equiping our kids to out-innovate, out-educate and out-build, this prepares kids to underperform and

underachieve. kids will be kicked out of head start this continuing resolution dooms kids to failure. over 131,000 student wills see their after school programs redeuced or eliminated even though after school programs improve academic success. over 1.4 million college students will see their pell grants cut, even though education is the best way to escape poverty. this resolution plays politics with our children's futures and our children's -- our children will lose. mr. speaker, i will say that this continuing resolution is a train wreck for louisiana and a train wreck for this country. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> mr. speaker, by direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 93 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 10, house resolution 93, resolved that upon adoption of this resolution, it shall be in order to take from the speaker's table the bill h r.

514 to extend expiring provisions of the u.s.a. patriots and re-authorization act of 2005 and intelligence reform and terrorism prevention act of 2004 relating to access to business records, individual terrorists and agents of foreign powers and rove wiringtaps until december 8, 2011, with a senate amendment thereto and to consider in the house without intervention at any point of order a motion offered by the chair of the me on the judiciary or his designee that the house concur in the sthath amendment. the senate amendment shall be considered as read. the motion shall be debatable for one hour with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the judiciary and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the permanent select committee on intelligence. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to its adoption without intervening motion. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is

recognized for one hour. mr. dreier: for purpose of debate only i yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend and rules committee colleague the gentleman from boulder, pl polis, pending -- mr. polis, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. and ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. dreier: as we all know by a vote of 274-144 the house passed a temporary 10-month extension to the patriot act, three provisions scheduled to expire within one legislative day from now. one legislative day from now. we all know that we are going to be going into a district work period beginning tomorrow afternoon. so we have one legislative day left to deal with this issue. yesterday by a vote of 86-12, our colleagues in the senate chose to take a 10-month extension we had and turn that into a 90-day extension. now, i think there's bipartisan consensus that we need to have

mr. sensenbrenner, mr. lungren, other members of the judiciary committee, the house permanent select committee on intelligence, and others involved in this to take a very close look at the need to deal with both the national security implications as well as the civil liberties implications of the extension of the patriot act. i just had a meeting with mr. sensenbrenner which we were talking about the fact that when we first put the patriot act into effect, he and i were together in saying there needed to be sunset provisions because we didn't want to ledge straight through the pritch of september 11 without ensuring -- prism of september 11 without ensuring this house and the other body would look at all the ramifications of the patriot act. it was unprecedented. but i believe that as we look at where we are today, the patriot act has been a very, very important tool in ensuring that we have not seen what so many people expected would happen

after september 11, and that is repeated attacks on our country. we have had attempts. we all know that. but we all thank god that we have been able to successfully prevent those attempts to attack us from coming to fruition. and i believe, mr. speaker, that the existence of the patriot act has played a role in that. having said that, i am a self-described small l libertarian republican. i believe in recognizing the civil liberties of every american and i think that's a priority that does need to be addressed. and i also recognize that sacrifices have to be made when you are dealing with the kinds of threats that we face. so striking that balance is not an easy thing to do. and messrs. sensenbrenner and lungren and others, mr. smith, the chairman of the judiciary committee, i believe are going to in the next 90 days do a lot of work in ensuring that the concerns that have been put before us are addressed.

so, mr. speaker, in ensuring that we don't see the expiration of these very important three provisions of the patriot act, i'm going to urge my colleagues to support this rule that will allow us to simply accept the language that the senate has passed with a 90-day extension, and move ahead just as expeditiously as possible so that our colleagues will be able to get to work in addressing the concerns that are out there. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves his time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i thank the gentleman. this bill is important to talk about what this bill would do and how the patriot act really cuts to the heart of what it means to be american. that sensitive balance that we have between protecting what makes it special to be an american, our rights as individuals, our civil liberties , balancing that with the need for national security. i am opposed to the rule and the

bill. we need to do -- we need to have law enforcement make sure that it has the provisions it needs to combat the very real threat of terrorism. however, the patriot act strikes that balance in the wrong way. but rather than actually debating the merits of the provision and coming up with solutions that i think we can agree on with both sides of the aisle as we have done in the past, republican leadership is forcing this through without the proper debate or transparency. in spite of their plethora of promises to change the culture of congress, here we are without a single hearing on this topic, without a classified briefing for members so we know what has and hasn't been done under the patriot act. specifically we are discussing the continuation of three provisions of the patriot act. we have the lone wolf provision which relates to foreign nationals in our country that are not specifically connected

to foreign terrorist network or foreign government that represent a security threat. we have the roving wiretap provision, again particularly problematic in how it's been designated where you don't have to even designate whose phone you are tapping or the area in which the phone is being tapped. all that has to be shown is it might be a phone that's used by somebody who might be considered a suspect by someone without any oversight with regard to that matter. it could -- there's nothing to restrict it from being used to tap the phones of an entire neighborhood, entire block, entire city. has it been used for that? i don't know because we haven't had yet a classified briefing on this matter and i certainly hope it's been stated in our prior debate on this it was the intention of our colleagues on the other side, and i'm sure we'll get to this on his time -- mr. dreier: will the gentleman yield? mr. polis: for a specific question. i think in our prior discussion -- mr. dreier: i'll --

mr. polis: i have not yielded yet. with regard to the intention to hold hearings and a classified briefing prior to the 90-day period which this expires, i yield to the gentleman. mr. dreier: one question i would have, february 25 of last year is when the 12-month extension was put into place. how many hearings or classified briefings were held for members during the past 12 months before this february 28 deadline? mr. polis: reclaiming my time. again, i would hope and i know that the gentleman and the chair of the rules committee's intentions and goals as are the speakers are more transparency in this congress and i don't think it's particularly helpful to cite what may be a failure of the democrats to deliver on reforming the patriot act and say therefore we don't have to succeed, either, in reforming the patriot act. i want to discuss the importance of this vote. we all agree that this affects our national security. and the civil liberties of americans. and yet unfortunately from a process perspective, we revert

-- reverted back to getting this through first own the suspension vote, long-term extension, short-term extension. there's no doubt the short-term extension is favorable to a long-term extension from those of us who have legitimate concerns, and i think there is even a bipartisan consensus these concerns are legitimate about the overreach of the patriot act. we'll have as a result of this a 90-day period to try to work through in a bipartisan way some of our concerns and make sure we protect what is special about being americans. we had an emergency meeting of the rules committee late last night which was the second emergency meeting for this bill alone. again, i think we all knew coming into this congress that these provisions were set to expire. there was -- would have been time for the judiciary committee to hold hearings and even a markup with regard to this bill because they have had -- held hearings with regard to other bills. they held hearings on immigration, abortion, other taupe ks -- topics.

i think regardless where one stands on this bill it rises to the level of importance for american citizens that we do strike the right balance between security and protection of civil liberty. if the house republicans are going to honor the promise of openness and transparency, we must make sure that they do schedule the hearings and markups that are necessary to have a proper debate of this bill. this new version before us today, the short-term c.r., provides a wibbedo for that -- window for that. i'm hopeful the chairs of the respect committees will be able to offer assurances. members of both parties that are concerned this 90-day period will be used to improve upon the bill, to hold hearings on the bill, and offer classified briefing for members so we can determine exackly how these authorities have been used. only after the initial effort to push this bill through under suspension failed did republican leadership bring it to the floor under a closed rule.

new members have not even had a classified briefing nor have the members from the last session, so it's hard for us to understand exactly how these authorities that are delegated are being used. it's clear that there's bipartisan support to improve this law. in fact, even as we speak the senate is debating several versions of a long-term re-authorization bill, and i think there's a very legitimate and important security concern in support of long-term re-authorization. so law enforcement can plan accordingly and have long-term planning with regard to exactly what they have with protecting the civil liberties they have. a 90-day extension is not the right answer. it's not the right answer for law enforcement. it's not the right answer for protecting our civil liberties. it may be an answer it's a chance to get it right. it will call upon members of both parties to work hard to do that. apart from the procedural flaws of the process, the patriot act is a bill that really has been plagued with abuse since it was

first passed. after 10 years of public record, there are some clear sections of the law that need to be improved. yet here we are again instead of debating those sections of the law and finding solutions we can agree on, we are facing an up or down vote on this bill with very little debate. this re-authorization fails to provide the administration with the tools and predictibilities -- predictibility it needs. the administration supports a permanent re-authorization and has asked for a real one. i think they are willing to work with us in this body on improving the patriot act. so this bill fails both to please the advocates pushing to reform the patriot act and also fails to provide for the administration whose job it is to protect our contry. again we ask -- country. again we ask why is the republican party jamming this bill through here today instead of debating a real bill that would improve our national security?

this bill before us today specifically re-authorizes three provisions of the patriot act. section 215 allows the government to capture any tangible thing, any business record that might be relevant to a terrorism investigation, that could include medical records, diary, even in one case books that have been checked out of a library. there is a library where somebody checked out a book about osama bin laden and who that person was was reported on. in the past these orders were limited to certain classes of businesses and records. and also required that we show specific facts that pertain to an agent of a foreign power. the patriot act is stripped away, those basic requirement, that's something i think every american values our privacy should be concerned about. this section 215 goes against the basic constitutional notions of search and seizure. we began this session of congress by reading the constitution on the floor of the house. and this really comes at a very core identity of what it means to be an american. the government under our

constitution is required to show reasonable suspicion or probable cause before they can infringe upon an american's prifecy. we ought to seriously consider making changes to this section instead of blindly giving the government the ability to secretly spy on its citizens. section 206, the second provision of the bill, allows the government to conduct the roving wiretaps. these allow the government to obtain surveillance warrants that don't even specify a specific person or object that's going to be tapped. the fourth amendment of our constitution, which ema sure my colleagues are familiar with having read it on the floor of the house, states warrant must specify the person and places to be seized and searched with particularity. this is to make sure the executive branch doesn't have unfettered power to decide who and how to search private citizens and seize their property. the founding fathers were concerned and worried about the possibility of a central

government authority issuing general warrants that would give it far-reaching power to spy on its citizens and intervene in their private lives. that's an american value that we share today. i think it's critical to craft protections for our privacy as americans that we can -- that can be consistent with the needs to secure our country before authorizing the government such overwhelming power. the final section would be the lone wolf provision which allows secret surveillance of noncitizens in the u.s. these are foreign nationals who are here legally even if they are not connected to a terrorist group or foreign power. again, this authority is only granted in the secret court, so from our perspective in congress, without having had the been fit of a classified briefing, we -- benefit of a classified briefing, it's difficult for us to have oversight if we are not aware how or if it's been used. my friends on the other side of the aisle said in numerous

debates they are worried about the growth of government. yet in spite of the recent rhetoric about how the government is trying to take control of our -- over our lives, this bill, their fifth bill under a rule since taking control of the house, givers the government the ability to spy on innocent americans. no wonder so many republicans joined democrats in voting against this bill earlier this week and i encourage my colleagues to continue standing strong for civil liberties. with that i reserve the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the blaps of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: i yield myself one minute. i was talking to our first-rate staff saying that the last statement my friend made is wrong. this bill does not allow the government to spy on innocent americans. i want to say, mr. speaker, before i yield to the distinguished chair of the crime subcommittee, that the notion of claiming that we could have had full hearings

before we dealt with this expiration is preposterous. the judiciary committee organized about two weeks ago. and the expiration date, the one-year expiration date established last february 25 provided that entire year, and there was not a single hearing. i wasn't being critical of the majority but what i'm being critical of is to come here and point the finger at us and saying, why haven't hearings and briefings been held on this issue before we deal with an extension? the extension is set to come to pass in one legislative day. we're going to deal with a 90-day extension before us that the senate passed by 86-12, and i think it's very clear we have to do our work. the person who is going to lead this effort is the former chairman of the judiciary, committee, my friend from wisconsin, who is ready to take this issue on with great enthusiasm. i yield him three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. pe try: we've heard most -- mr. petri: we've heard most of these arguments in the last nine days and i want to say again, first of all, the judiciary committee under my chairmanship reported out a patriot act unanimously in october of 2001. that ranged from people like maxine waters on the left to bob barr on the right. mr. sensenbrenner: we did reform the patriot act in 2005 when it came up for renewal last time. i fulfilled my promise, number one to oppose a premature elimination of the sunset and number two, to have hearings on each of the then-17 expanded provisions of law enforcement that were sunsetted at that time. and 14 out of the 17, there was

no complaint about. even the american civil liberties union testified on behalf of the fact that there were no abuses whatsoever in those 14. there was concern about the three that are in the underlying bill today and at the insistence of the gentleman from california, mr. lungren, we put a sunset on it. that expired in 2009. there have been two extensions that were voted on by the then-democrat congress, but they really didn't get at what the complaints of the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis, have been. this bill has been used by its opponents as a way of expressing frustration with the f.b.i. and other law enforcement agencies that have nothing to do with the patriot act. it's kind of like a bait and switch. or putting up straw man. and then attacking the straw man. buzz they really can't attack

the real man, which is the patriot act and what is up for extension. none of these three provisions have been held unconstitutional by a court. there hasn't even been a challenge to the rove wiringtaps and there hasn't been a challenge to the lone wolf provision that is also up for renewal. and when there was a challenge to the section 215 business records or for that matter library records, the reforms that i wrote and which we passed in 2005 corrected them to the extent that those who were filing the constitutional challenge against it withdrew their complaint after we fixed what they were planing about. now the gentleman from colorado and the other opponents of the patriot act are complaining for the sake of complaining. they're saying there has been a violation of civil liberties, there hasn't been. no court has found that there's been a violation of civil

liberties. none of these provisions the government -- may i have an adecisional minute. mr. dreier: i'd like to yield my friend an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional minute. mr. sensenbrenner: none of these provisions that are up for renewal, there's really been any meritorious complain. there's been a great big fear that civil liberties have been violated but when you get down to the fact, no court has found that civil liberties have been violated. i hope we could debate these issues without all the smoke screen of other sins, real or imagined by law enforcement and particularly by the f.b.i., and maybe we could get to a rational debate on what this bill does. but the arguments that i have heard from the gentleman from colorado and other opponents of this rule and this bill simply miss the mark. you're now up at strike four, gentleman from colorado. let's retire the side.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the yell from colorado. mr. polis: i yield myself one minute to respond, mr. speaker. first of all, i want to respond to absolutely the patriot act can be used to investigate and find out private records from innocent americans and we say that because section 215 can be used for any information relevant to investigation. it doesn't need to be from the subject of an investigation, it can be internet records, what they buy at a bookstore, what they buy at a library. the judiciary committee has had time to have 10 hearings this year, but none of them have happen thond particular topic. apparently it's not important enough to discuss. how are we to know if we don't -- if violations have occurred if we don't have a briefing. say nothing court has found, that's because all this is hush-hush and secret and some of it needs to be, but for us to execute our oversight function you can't say, there haven't been abuses because we don't know about them, we have to fine out what's going on

under this law and the side whether or not there have been abuses. with that, i'm pleased to yield thee minutes to the ranking member of the rules committee, ms. slaughter. the speaker pro tempore: the yealt is recognized. ms. slaughter: i want to respond to some things i heard, the majority's promise that after we vote on this, we'll have some hearings. we're told they're going to be rigorous and fair and we're reminded of the many hearings held by mr. sensenbrenner in the 2005 re-authorization. first in the 111th congress we held hearings before we marked up the patriots -- patriot act, before we asked members to vote, not after. we have new members who have never voted on the patriot act, never been briefed on how these thors are used. it is simply not responsible to make them vote when they don't know what they're voting on. sec the majority's nostalgia

for 2005 has colored their memory a bit. while they remember a careful and thorough process, i remember being forced to hold minority hearings so that all perspectives could be heard. i remember hearings being gaveled to a close before they were over. i remember subcommittee chairmen walking out of the hearing while members were raising poifereds. -- points of order. i remember microphones being turned off while democrat members, including one of my fellow members from new york, while they were speaking. i remember being forced to convene the hearing on something like two days' notice as the power to schedule the committee was abused. i don't know how to take these current promises of openness and fair procedure. third, while there's been so much talk on the throor about using the coming hearings to reform the patriot act, we know that is simply not what is going to happen. my friends in the majority have already stated their views on the question. last congress, chairman smith

proposed a 10-year extension with no changes or reform to the underlying law. in 2005, mr. sensenbrenner proposed a permanent extension and they have a bill for that right now. in the senate. indeed, if there were any will of the majority party to reform these provisions that would have happened in the last congress when we, the majority party, worked for months to forge a compromise and got no republican support. i don't expect the coming hearings to be part of a reform process. i expect them to be heavy on political theater designed to make the powers permanent. that, no doubt, is why this is signed to force the next vote into the presidential primary season to raise the political stakes. one of the reasons the 16 provisions were set to expire in five years was because they were deemed too invasive of our civil liberties, possibly invasive enough to be used to violate the very freedoms that our young men and women in uniform too often die

protecting. these provisions provide the government with exceptional powers of search, seizure and surveillance, often without the due process that our constitution guarantees us. nearly 10 years later, we continue to re-authorize -- may i ask for a few more minutes? mr. polis: i'm honored this -- honored to yield the gentlelady two more minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. slaughter: the idea with these measures was that they would always be temporary yet now we see that the majority wants to make them last forever. they choose to blindably move forward, it's a sad to testament to the majority's view of an open process. ultimately, this is no way to consider a piece of legislation that has as far-reaching and profound. cakes for our civil liberties as this does. yet the majority seeks to kick the can down the road, stifling

the debate these provisions deserve and need to be scrutinized. we would do well to remember that these provisions were passed into law in the frantic weeks of september 11, 2001. without our understanding of potential impact or benefit. and that is why we created sunset review in the first place and why ewe need a thorough review to keep these incredible powers in place. make no mistake, they are incredible powers. we're not packing a run of the mill program. these are powers that will allow the government to continue to access business records, conduct roving wiretaps and monitor the american citizens. this would leave our founding fathers aghast at the erosion of civil liberties they enshrined for us. our oath of office is to defend the constitution yet many members voted against the constitution when this came on the floor last week this

process, lacking a serious review of far-reaching and invasive provisions does not live up to that standards. i urge my colleagues to vote no and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, at this time, to respond to some of the comments that we've heard, i'm happy to yield three minutes to my hardworking colleague from gold river, kale, mr. lungren. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. lungren: i don't know whether we're in an episode of "alice in wonderland" here or not. just because you say something is true doesn't make it true. the gentlelady just spoke a moment ago and said we need to look at this, we need to crub this, yet she is asking her colleagues to vote against the rule to not even allow this to be brought up. what is the conclusion of that? what's the intimation of this? to allow the provisions to expire. not to have time to look at

them but they would expire -- one legislative day left. these are three major provisions in our effort to fight against terrorism. these are the provisions that initially were put under a sunset by the gentleman from wisconsin when he was chairman of the committee and then later on, when we redid, reviewed and reformed provisions of this, i authored, brought forward, the extension with the sunsets on these three provisions. so i find it interesting to have my friends on the other side of the aisle tell us what we were doing and tell us now that there has been a proven unconstitutionality or unconstitutional basis for these three provisions. interestingly enough they referred to the lone wolf provision. that was known when it was first passed as the schumer-kyl provision. schumer-kmbing yl. those are two senators. members of the other body. i would say probably extending

from the left to the right. why did they put that in? because we believed that we were -- we were actually burdening ourselves in a way that would not allow us to find out about terrorism before it was actually carried out. the lone wolf provision recognizes that the greatest threat we have today are, as was said by the two co-chairs of the 9/11 commission, less consequential attacks, meaning attacks on a smaller scale than that we saw on 9/11, still meant to do grievous harm to americans, to cause us to see the loss of life, do tremendous physical damage to this country. yet, with smaller cells or even from individuals, do we have to be reminded on that christmas day a couple of years ago?

that was a lone wolf. even though these provisions wouldn't apply because he's an american citizen, major hasan was a lone wolf. just to prove the point that we have to be concerned about lone wolfs. the other two provisions, business records and roving wiretaps, because there's been so much misunderstanding and misstatement, i actually observed a member of the other body this morning on television saying the reason that he voted against these extensions was that under the constitution he believed that one ought to have a warrant -- >> i yield my friend an additional minute. mr. lungren: there should be a warrant. two provision the business record provision and the roving wiretap provision, require the government to go to the fisa court to get permission to carry out those elements directed at any individual. .

let's just make sure we know what we are talking about here. we are talking about two provision that is require the government to go before the fisa court to get permission to utilize those provisions in their investigation. the third part deals with the lone wolf definition. and the lone wolf requirement is needed now more than it was when it first passed. because of the difference in the threat to us that has been recognized by our intelligence agencies and by the 9/11 commissioners, and most recently, by secretary napolitano. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i'm proud to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from california, ms. woolsey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. woolsey: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. woolsey: mr. speaker, the new majority in the house has told us that their decisions are guided by two principles, first, loyalty to the constitution. and second, a belief that the government is too large and too

intrusive. well, here's their chance to act on those principles because the patriot act provision we are voting on today represent big brother at its creepiest and most invasive. they are in clear violation of the fourth amendment, the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. no, i will not, sir. mr. speaker, for close to a decade now, we have been told our civil liberties must be shredded in the name of a so-called war on terrorism. we have been told that the national security imperatives of the moment are so great and so different than any we face in our history that we must submit to roving wiretaps, we must empower the government to obtain any tangible thing related to the terrorism investigation. any tangible thing. that gives the government pretty

broad discretion to ferret out just about whatever they want. it is an invitation to overreach and abuse. i believe it is stiltsed freedom more than advanced it. there is a real incoherent approach that says we have to do violence to our nation's values in order to protect them. benjamin franklin's words are just as powerful today as they were more than 200 years ago when he said, any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and will lose both. i believe we must let these provisions expire and let's not stop there. let's move toward a fuller debate about civil liberties and national security. a debate that revises the ultimate -- and ultimately repeals the patriot act. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. dreier: i yield myself 15 seconds. i was sorry my friend would not

yield to the distinguished chair of the subcommittee. he was simply going to ask her what provisions of the patriot act have been determined to be unconstitutional? the answer is, not one. mr. speaker, with that i'd like to inquire of my friend how many speakers he has remaining on his side. mr. polis: i am aware of at least two speakers. i believe i have two speakers remaining. mr. dreier: with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you. it's my honor to yield two minutes to the gentleman from ohio, mr. kucinich. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. kucinich: i want my friend from wisconsin to know that i don't denigrate his service on this. we have a different way of looking at this. i believe the patriot act represents the cracked domestic crown jewel of a disastrous global war on terror which led us to attack iraq based on lies,

invade afghanistan based on misreading of history, indulge in occupations which have fueled insurgencies, extend war to pakistan and other countries. demonstrating a total lack of common sense. so the patriot act issues from a different soil laced with lies and distortions. we created a national security state which threatens our constitution and weakens our basic liberties. this is not about whether you are a democrat or republican. liberal or conservative. whether we can actually realize that we have been sold a bill of goods, lies about wmd's, questions about the nature of an anthrax attack, which caused us all too willingly to limit our civil liberties. i joined other members of congress in approving the united states launching attacks on

training camps after 9/11 because we have a right to respond and defend ourselves. we also have an obligation to defend the constitution. we have an obligation to defend the truth. freedom isn't free and we shouldn't freely give our freedoms away. when francis scott key wrote the "star spangled banner," remember these words, oh, say, does that star spangle banner wave over the land of the free and brave. he connected freedom and democracy. we have to be courageous to stand up for this constitution. i believe my colleagues on the republican side are courageous americans, good americans, but i want to say we have to look at the context in which the patriot act was passed and we have to -- from that context challenge the patriot act. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: i will continue to reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you. i'm glad to yield two minutes to

the gentlelady from california, a member of the judiciary committee, ms. chu. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. chu: mr. chair, i rise today to oppose this rule. the underlying bill will extend provisions of the patriot act that continue to deny americans their civil liberties. we should not be extending these provisions, we should be fixing them, and the delay of even three months will only incur more violations of the civil rights of american citizens. take this so-called roving wiretap which allow our government to spy on a nebulous array of people and technology. if the f.b.i. wants to wiretap a phone, they don't even have to know who they are listening to. they don't even have to get a court's permission to tap the phones before they start listening. now, last year i voted on a bill that would at minimum require the government to name the place or persons they want to listen to. but does this bill include that simple protection? no.

these provisions, including the provisions to allow the f.b.i. to access your private information, even the books that you read, make a mockery of our civil liberties. letting the government spy on whomever they want for any reason without letting them know or giving them a chance to challenge that order in court. now, it's a full decade since these overly broad provisions were cast and i don't think we should extend them without commonsense changes. we need to fix them and fix them now and protect american privacy and personal information from government overreach. i urge the other side to come back to the table and work with us on a bill that protects our national security without undermining american civil liberties and constitutional rights. and that they can't find a way to work with us on a bipartisan basis and protect the american people, then all my colleagues should oppose this rule and the underlying bill. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: i say to my friend, it doesn't appear he has any other speakers, if he's preeped to close i'll close after -- prepared to close, i'll close after he offers his remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i thank the gentleman from california. thank you, mr. speaker. this patriot act really speaks to our very core identity as americans. how do we pal, what makes it special to be american. unprecedented levels of rights that we enjoy, our privacy as individuals, our civil liberties. how do we reconcile that with staying safe in an incredibly complex world? i think it's critical for any of us who are concerned about the unchecked growth of the state, those of us who seriously believe in protecting the rights and liberties of americans to seriously look at these issues and debate them. and a no vote on the rule and bill is a first step towards accomplishing that. the house was in session late into the night, likely will be

again tonight on a very important topic. cutting spending. i put several suggestions forward. i appreciate this process. it's enabled members to come up with how we are going to cut. there's been a lot of great ideas that have been submitted through amendments. i would submit that this patriot act and balancing our civil liberties and security is as important a topic to what it means to be an american as making cuts in our budget. i voted against the adjournment resolution yesterday and i think that if we were in session next week and put the time into solving the issues under the patriot act, that we are putting into making budget cuts, we would be able to come to a consensus that protects our civil liberties and also keeps americans safe from the threat of terrorism. the majority argues that we must pass this extension now without any process. it's also been alluded to there were not hearings in the last congress. there actually were.

the judiciary committee held two hearings on the patriot act in 2009. there hasn't been time to hold hearings in this congress because the judiciary committee just constituted itself. well, they found time to hold 10 hearings on items that have not even come to the floor. so surely there would have been time for one hearing on an item that everybody knew was going to expire and needed to be dealt with. those of us who joined congress in the last session, as well as our new members this session, many of whom are on the other side of the aisle, have not had any classified briefing on how this authority that's been given to the federal government has been used. how can we exercise our meaningful oversight with regard to these three provisions of the patriot act and the patriot act in general if we are not given the benefit to find out exactly how these broad powers that have been given to the federal government have been used? if this passes today, and i

expect it might, it's critical that we take the next 90 days to make sure that congress can properly execute it's oversight upon the need for renewing the necessary provisions of the patriot act. there is a window of time that will afford the judiciary committee to do its work in a bipartisan way. to include other members through the classified briefing to find out how and when the powers under the patriot act have been used. so that members of this body can make an informed decision, an informed decision about how to move forward in 90 days. with protecting our rights as americans and protecting our security as americans. the two are not irreconcilable and we cannot sacrifice what makes it special to be an american in the name of security or the terrorists have won. i urge a no vote on the rule and

the bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, we are where we are. the senate took our 10-month extension that we passed by a vote of 274-144 and decided to offer a 90-day extension which passed by an 86-12 vote. even before we saw this extension, the gentleman, the chairman of the crime subcommittee, has made a commitment he will proceed very vigorously in the next 90 days to deal with the questions my presented has raised. i think many questions raised are valid. that's why it is we need to have this extension which is scheduled to expire in one legislative day if we take no action, because i think everyone

can acknowledge that the patriot act has played a role in keeping the united states of america safe. all three of my -- my two colleagues and i joined from the get-go saying that there should not have been -- they should not have made this measure permanent because we were legislating through the prism of september 11 at the outset and we felt very strongly that recognizing the civil liberties of every single american has to continue to be a very, very tough priority while we look what i think are the five most important words in the middle of the preamble of the u.s. constitution, and that is, providing for the common defense. thomas jefferson in his first inaugural address made it very clear when he said a wise and true government shall restrain men from injuring one another. that's why our security has to be paramount importance, but it doesn't mean it's done at the expense of civil liberties and the rights of every american. guess what, mr. speaker. the nt